|
HOW TO READ THE WEB SITE EVALUATION Each submitted instructional unit web site prepared for HIS 370 / 570, SUMMER WORKSHOP: WORLD HISTORY FOR TEACHERS, was evaluated by the instructor using the rubric reproduced below with evaluative comments in place. Words and phrases outlined in YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING represent the instructor’s positive and/or negative reflections on the various points covered by the rubric; phrases added in RED TYPEFACE WITH YELLOW HIGHLIGHTING are further evaluative comments by the instructor, outlining other reactions (again, both positive and negative) aroused by a review of the unit web site. RED TYPEFACE COMMENTS WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING represent comments meant to qualify the preceding statement to some degree; they carry less evaluative weight. In instances where there is neither highlighting nor comments in red typeface, the review was mixed across the board, neither wholly positive nor wholly negative, incorporating both good and bad elements from the rubric, ultimately coming down somewhere in between the two positions cited in the language of the rubric. |
TEACHING UNIT EVALUATION
RUBRIC
The
completed TEACHING UNIT was evaluated with respect to (1) the intelligence with
which the instructional objectives of the unit were stated, supported and
achieved; (2) the quality and effective utilization of incorporated
instructional resources; and (3) the organization and presentation of the
completed web-based instructional unit.
Web Site Evaluation Rubric
|
DEMONSTRATES A CONSISTENT AND WELL-CONCEIVED SITE DESIGN STRATEGY: |
DEMONSTRATES AN INCONSISTENT OR POORLY-EXECUTED SITE DESIGN STRATEGY: |
|
Employs a readable and
appropriately-sized type face |
Type face is difficult to read |
|
Utilizes a coordinated color scheme consistently throughout the web site |
Color scheme is unsuitable
(overly garish, too dark, difficult to decipher) or inconsistently applied The design is well-executed
and dramatic; the dark background works most of the time but the dark blue,
purple and gray type are difficult to read against the black |
|
Clearly and appropriately
organizes design elements and content in an aesthetically pleasing and
accessible manner |
Design choices poorly made |
|
Design strategy badly implemented |
|
|
Site badly organized |
|
|
Makes good use of graphics and illustrations throughout |
Employs only minimal
illustrations / graphics The result, however,
is starkly effective. |
|
Structures the web site
effectively overall and incorporates an effective linkage strategy Uses an especially
effective “splash page” |
Site poorly structured |
|
Incorporates inconsistent link patterns |
|
|
Avoids over-lengthy pages of
content |
Text overly dense and extended over too many screens to sustain interest and / or easy recall |
|
Is appropriately organized with
respect to content and presentation expectations Day-by-day lesson
list could be annotated so that instructor and student see how the whole unit
fits together by reviewing what’s happening as each day passes |
Includes irrelevant or tangential materials |
|
Fails to establish meaningful links / divisions between and among included content / information / data |
|
|
Fails to maintain overall thematic or organizational focus |
|
|
Can be effectively and
efficiently navigated |
Includes “dead links” or “orphan pages” |
|
Does not incorporate “back” buttons or other necessary site navigation aids |
|
|
Fails to title web site pages appropriately |
|
|
Encourages interactivity and
multimedia approaches appropriate to the subject matter considered |
Fails to take advantage of the multimedia capabilities of the Internet web environment, merely transplanting a conventional instructional lesson plan into cyberspace |
|
Handles issues of language
(grammar, diction, spelling) and annotation / attribution appropriately and
avoids typographical errors An occasional
punctuation error…. |
Loses credibility due to errors (grammar, diction, spelling, typographical) |
|
Lacks necessary source documentation / annotation |
|
|
Provides appropriate site
author authentication (including contact information and indications of
posting and revision dates) on each individual site page and a consideration
of author credentials and qualifications on an associated personal homepage |
Omits needed authentication information establishing web site credibility and reliability |
|
Fails to establish site author credentials and relevant experience |
|
Clearly states grade / skill level expectations |
Fails to indicate characteristics
of an appropriate instructional setting |
|
Establishes and justifies an appropriate larger thematic and
chronological instructional context |
|
|
Meets appropriate grade level curricular expectations (as listed and credited) |
Omits consideration of instructional
standards / goals / teaching objectives |
|
Implementation plan does not meet stated instructional standards / goals / objectives |
|
|
Does not credit sources (local / state / national) of standards listed |
|
|
Is linked creatively and
effectively to specific criteria useful in the teaching of world history as
discussed in the workshop sessions Omits links to
present day materials on |
Is insufficiently tied to established world history characteristics (is not thematic, comparative, limited in scope to a significant topic, encouraging of empathy and awareness of multiple points of view, open to movement beyond consideration of the United States and Western Europe, oriented towards active student participation in the learning process, interested in equipping students with useful academic skills) |
|
Lacks creativity in choice of subject matter or the implementation of chosen criteria in the classroom setting |
|
|
Clearly and effectively
evidences instructor creativity, expertise and experience in choice of
subject matter, teaching rationale, thematic emphasis, planning resources
used and/or consulted, approach, processes and procedures used, and homework
/ classroom assignments |
Overly ambitious (in terms of timeline or expectations laid on students or instructor) or otherwise inappropriately packaged for intended audience |
|
Poorly laid out or insufficiently explained instructional process |
|
|
Lacks evidence of creativity in the implementation of the chosen subject matter |
|
|
Includes appropriate and
meaningful instructional goals and objectives coupled with effective
evaluation standards and procedures Activities and
objectives nicely integrated. |
Fails to provide adequate indication of instructional expectations and/or evaluation standards |
|
Demonstrates familiarity with
useful and effective electronic resources accessible through the Internet Does an especiallyt effective job with these resources. |
Internet links are altogether absent |
|
Internet links are not well chosen or are inadequately integrated into the instructional process |
|
|
Provides effective curricular
unit classroom resources and useful explanations for classroom materials and
lesson plans Web sites in resource
listing, however, need annotation. |
Instructor resources are not included |
|
Instructor resources are left unexplained as to their potential utility or inappropriate to the lesson plan implementation process |
|
|
Incorporates an effectively annotated bibliography discussing both print and non-print resources useful in preparation and/or implementation of the curriculum unit |
Omits bibliographic references altogether |
|
Listed resources are erroneously or inadequately annotated |